It's a gamble that jaywalkers lose every year.

When you're going to jaywalk, ensure that the next car is far enough away to where it doesn't matter if they stop. That's the correct way that would've saved this person's life without any further analysis.

I'm taking issue with this:

>that person died for no good reason beyond Uber rushing tech out the door before it was ready

Well, no. They died because they lost their gamble on an unguided crossing where the oncoming car did not stop.

We are now analyzing why the car didn't stop, but notice how no charges were pressed.

No charges were filed yet, but that's unlikely to happen until after the NTSB report.

It's true that jaywalking is a gamble, but so is crossing a street with the light. Leaving the house is a gamble. That doesn't mean we can blame the victim of a collision for leaving the house. It can be simultaneously true that A) jaywalking is not always a great idea, and B) the Uber car should have avoided this collision.

i agree with you 10,000%. i think everyone is so concerned about why the car didn't stop, they forget that jaywalking or running out into the middle of the road is a gamble always.

i wonder... if the person crossing had been behind an obstruction and stepped out right in front of the car, would everyone still blame the car or the driver for hitting the person crossing?

Did you watch the video? I think any decent self-driving tech would've seen her, but I highly contend with OP's assertion that an "alert human" would have stopped in time. The road was very dark, and she came out of nowhere.

If the car was speeding, you might be able to make that argument, but I don't think anyone has made that claim yet.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to contend with what I actually said. I did not actually say a human would have stopped in time. I said a human would have braked and swerved.

The video is misrepresentative of the actual road conditions.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/police-chief-said-uber-...